Shuai case resolved, thorny legal issues remain

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A resolution that spared Bei Bei Shuai more jail time and dropped murder and attempted feticide charges filed after the death of her newborn daughter did little to clarify the state of the law under which she was prosecuted.

Shuai was charged after her newborn daughter died days after her delivery by emergency caesarian section at Indiana University Health Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis. Shuai had told friends that she consumed rat poison days earlier in an attempted suicide after the baby’s father jilted her. Her friends persuaded her to seek medical attention.

shuaiFilePhoto-15col.jpg Defense attorney Linda Pence, left, insists the murder and attempted feticide charges against Bei Bei Shuai should never have been filed. Shuai’s case ended Aug. 2 with her plea to a misdemeanor. (IL file photo)

More than 30 months later, the Chinese immigrant walked free after the prosecution and defense teams reached a resolution. At a late-afternoon hearing Aug. 2, Shuai pleaded guilty to Class B misdemeanor criminal recklessness, and the state dropped the murder and attempted feticide charges.

Marion Superior Judge Sheila Carlisle accepted the plea agreement just hours after she and state court staff had briefed reporters and distributed decorum orders in anticipation of a high-profile, weeks-long trial for Shuai that had been set to start Sept. 3.

After the Aug. 2 hearing, defense attorney Linda Pence said the outcome was about the best her client could have hoped for short of dismissal. Shuai was sentenced to 178 days, but time served exceeded that amount. “She has served her time in this case,” Carlisle said in approving the plea agreement.

 “It feels great,” Shuai told reporters after the hastily called final hearing in her case, which lasted less than 30 minutes. “I can tell you I feel great relief.”

Shuai, 36, signed a plea that admitted she “recklessly performed an act, specifically: ingested Brodifacoum, that created a substantial risk of bodily injury to a person, that is: Angel Shuai.”

But Pence says the case never should have been filed, and has called the prosecution cruel. “This woman was in the throes of depression,” she said as she stood next to Shuai after her plea. Pence said Shuai was prosecuted for actions she took that weren’t crimes.

Despite a resolution that allowed Shuai to walk free from murder charges that had been pending more than two years, Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry said he disagrees with Pence and said the law is on his side.

“We prevailed on the legal issue as it pertains to the interpretation of the statute,” Curry said in an interview, pointing to the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling in Bei Bei Shuai v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1106-CR-486. The majority in that opinion concluded “the murder statute is unambiguous and its plain language encompasses (Shaui’s) alleged actions, and she does not have immunity from prosecution.”

Curry said his office received more than 200,000 emails from around the world objecting to the Shuai prosecution, but he said public pressure didn’t motivate his decision to offer the deal. Rather, Curry said the deal represented a recognition of adverse rulings from Carlisle that limited or might limit state’s evidence, as well as a desire to preserve Shuai’s immigration status.

Rulings that limited testimony of pathologists in particular led to the question, “Are we really going to go (to trial) with half our case?” he said.

Presented the same set of circumstances, Curry said he was “not 100 percent sure” he would proceed again as he did in Shuai’s case. “I feel we have approached this in good faith from the first day. Our responsibility is to take the law as it’s given to us by the Legislature. We can’t pick and choose and say the Legislature is misguided in enacting this.”

But Pence said she had been prepared to proceed to trial and call as many as 80 witnesses, including lawmakers, legal scholars, health experts and others who would have testified that a law enacted as a policy response to much-publicized violent attacks against pregnant women was being twisted.

Pence said the Court of Appeals dissenting judge who would have dismissed the charges against Shuai properly ruled, and that she’s exploring whether there might be a vehicle to present the Indiana Supreme Court with the question of whether I.C. 35-42-1-1(4) applies to the actions of pregnant women.

Terry Curry Curry

Curry and Pence agree that there appears to be a need for lawmakers to clarify the statute. Until then, Pence said pregnant women risk being charged for anything they do that a prosecutor may believe contributed to the death of a child.

“The dismissal of the case does not alleviate concerns of other women throughout Indiana who are or may become pregnant – they are in danger,” Pence said. “We now know that some prosecutors do not understand the law, legislative history, or the needs and pain suffered by pregnant women.”

Curry dismissed such concerns, but said he couldn’t speak for how prosecutors around the state may interpret the prevailing Court of Appeals opinion.

“There has been such fundamental misinformation” on Shuai’s case, he said, rejecting arguments that the law as interpreted raises the prospect that women could face criminal charges, for instance, for substance abuse during pregnancy.

On Aug. 2, Carlisle also approved a waiver of fines and court fees for Shuai, who Pence said had limited resources. After the hearing, Pence said Shuai was one of the kindest and most gracious young women she had ever met, working seven days a week at an Indianapolis Chinese restaurant.

Shuai thanked supporters, who she said boosted her spirits while she was jailed. “I was really, really depressed until one day I read a letter a supporter sent to me,” she said. “I remember every one of them.”

Pence said she’s worked seven-day weeks for more than two-and-a-half years, with Shuai’s case dominating her time. She estimated Shuai has received pro bono billable hours exceeding $2 million. “For a small firm like this, that’s monumental,” Pence said.

“This case has tested my beliefs in the justice system. Why did (Shuai) have to be incarcerated in the Marion County Jail for 14 months when she should have been presumed innocent and was absolutely no threat to society,” Pence said.

The same Court of Appeals ruling that said Shuai wasn’t immune from prosecution also said she was entitled to bail, after which she was fitted with a monitoring device pending trial. Shuai spent 435 days in the Marion County Jail before the Court of Appeals ruling, after which she was released on $50,000 bond.

“I’ve lived with it for so long, it’s basically just sinking in that I don’t have to sit with that poor woman in court while the state tried to attack her,” Pence said.•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?